ewokpelts

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 02:34 PM) They were already let them going to move once, not sure why they would stop them now. With the tv money being what it is, it won't happen. Even if an owner wanted to move.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 03:19 PM) Yes. It will be interesting to see how that works. It is possible it won't be the windfall we are used to seeing. I read an article about it being a pretty tall task for one team. Programming 24 hours a day all year can be a problem. There are only so many times you can watch a one hour Ernie Banks special. How many homes will have the channel. I watch some Cubs games, but by principle alone, wouldn't pay extra for this channel. But one good thing is until then, when the Cubs are drawing huge ratings, the White Sox make a bit more money. Depends on the partner. If it's ESPN or fox, you may see programming get ported over. And who knows who the Bears will pick to be on. They are currently signed with csn Chicago for the "exclusive" pre and post game coverage.

The sox will NEVER leave Chicago. Aside from the fact that they have a lucrative stadium deal until 2029, they will be getting a massive new tv deal in 2020. And that deal will likely be on the network they are already on, which just so happens to be on almost every cable operator in the area. On the other hand, the Cubs tv deal may look more like the Dodgers or Astros, assuming operators balk at the carriage rates of cubs net. You see, csn Chicago was ordered to take below market carriage deals by Jerry ( via his friend the late Jim Corno) to ensure everyone had the channel. The thinkin was that the equity stake and increased exposure would pay for any "losses" from carriage fees.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 10:53 PM) He's either regularly half in the bag or mildly retarded, I can't quite figure out which. Now that s*** is funny!

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 08:13 AM) umadbro? Actually, yes. I try not and get worked up about bad signings or trades( I have defended the danks and Jeff s deals here and elsewhere), but when I hear someone basically admit he's taking my money, then f*** him. I won't ever tell someone how to worship a deity, nor would I criticize them for spreading the good word( I'm a former seminarian), but theb25 million dollar contract he got was to play baseball, not evangelize. He can do that on his free time. The $25 million allows him to do just that. AFTER he's done fulfilling his contract. That he freely signed mind you.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 10:47 AM) i somewhat disagree here. while the sox org is not the yanks, dodgers, res sox etc of the baseball world, where they could toss money around, on the same topic of economics, they are the in the financial strains of that, a 3rd world economy. there is a lot of mis information there. here is a simple question, what is the priority, getting the team to compete or make no moves until it is financial ok to do it, with the understanding of not interrupting the owners profit margin. What the f*** are you smoking? Do you read what comes out of your fingers?

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 8, 2015 -> 10:58 AM) Hahn did speak about if they signed player the Sox would be looking for a back loaded deal beyond '16 when Danks/LaRoche contracts are done but that different than what Knightengale said about LaRoche and why the Sox are looking to trade him. I don't doubt the Sox are looking to move LaRoche, I doubt Knightengale's reason seeing as how the Sox will have to eat money in order save just a bit. Trading LaRoche is about opening up the DH spot. Open up the DH spot and the Sox have more flexibility. Melky goes to DH, RF goes to Thompson, LF goes to Avi or FA/trade bat. Hell, the Sox would be able to platoon Avi/Melky at DH. I like LaRoche as a person but he isnclogging up the DH spot and suffocating the teams flexibility. Laroche is a born again idiot that said he's not here to play the game,but to spread the gospel. No dickf***, you are getting paid 25 million to hit a f***ing baseball. Once he said that crap, I wanted him gone in a flash.

Because he's worth 200-300 million in the open market. Any team that trades for his team friendly deal(69 million maxvalue for life of contract which eats two non-arb years) saves a boatload of money for an ace.

This outcome should please most. The sox got the draft pick for the rejected QO, Jeff S gets his fat payday, and Levineline gets to look like a chump. Again. While I would have preferred he still be on the sox, he was never going to sign a deal before entering the open market. The funny thing is that he only got $5 million more for the 5th season from SF vs the original cubs extension offer of 4/85. As for the chorus of "we shoulda traded im when he had a chance!", I think the offers were too s***ty for a guy that the sox could extract a draft pick from. He was a pure rental for any team getting him in june and july. There was no incentive to offer a serious prospect for a guy that you KNEW was going to hit the market, because he would not have a pick attached to his QO as a result of the trade. I simply don't believe Kenny was holding rick back from a trade with the blue jays, or any other team.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Oct 22, 2015 -> 08:49 AM) It's interesting to me because if such an idea was true, suddenly we'd be an even better trade partner for the Cubs. Now, let's speculate Quintana and Eaton are traded -- with the money freed up for the Cubs moving Eaton in LF and Quintana in their rotation (avoiding a costly SP like Price), they'd probably have enough to sign Heyward to a massive deal. Now, what would we want in return to justify helping the Cubs? I'd say Schwarber, Addison Russell, Top two Prospects in Cubs system. Now 2016 we'd definitely take our lumps, (No Q, absence of legitimate leadoff hitter) but think come 2017 the money we'd have available to sign someone via FA. Also you're considering the progression of Anderson (if he isn't included in any proposed Cubs trade...) as a 2B replacement. Perhaps by then we're ready for Fulmer, Montas, Adams. I never considered dealing Eaton, but it's damn interesting to think aboyt Now why would the sox help the Cubs like that?

Journalistic integrity and sports go great together. Like how no one knew Mickey mantle was a raging drunk because he was drinking with the press. or joe cowley's second job as The guillen family spokesman. And let's not forget mariotti

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 17, 2015 -> 05:41 AM) I wonder if Lip even realizes in the same thread he says ethical journalism would mean each team is covered equally despite whether there is any interest or not, (seems laughable to me)he posted in the "Golden Age"which I am guessing was the time he considered journalists had ethics, the White Sox received "the lion's share of the coverage,". Seems under his definition that wasn't very ethical. I guess, as Geddy Lee has belted out many times, the more things change, the more they stay they same. The bard's room at the old park was Comiskey's, and later Veeck's, personal clubhouse where the media were treated like kings.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 16, 2015 -> 02:08 PM) ethically the news, which the sports is, should be without favoritism and preferences. however at this time, when only one club is making news, esp news for the fans in competition, such as baseball, the sox will not see any mention what so every. outside that, both should be fairly equal. now is it??? it doesn't matter, the sox had their chance and oh well. what so EVERY are you babbling about?

Oh hell no! The white sox should not even consider taking on Ramirez. Not only is it a bad move for the pale hosers, it just helps Boston. They got a do-over in 2012, and they basically doubled down on bloated contracts for undeserving talent or washups. The white sox need to shed payroll as well as unproductivr players. Ramirez is both.

Abreu is not arbitration eligible. He opts out, he is a free agent. He Dosent even get a qualifying offer

I suspect he will finally go home to the cardinals if he is indeed not retiring.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 09:15 AM) The team lost money in 2014. How? They shed 28 million in player payroll by trading peavy and rios. And abreu' salary is back loaded

The sox aren't moving ever. They have the chance to own 40% of csn Chicago( provided the Cubs leave to start thier own network), which is shown in almost every cable household in the market. And a rights deal that will expire in 3 seasons, with a projected windfall in tv money in 2020. Not to mention one of the best stadium deals in the game. We live in an era where paid attendance is a small factor in a teams financial health.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 07:06 AM) The Giants and Dodgers were in New York for almost 75 years and got moved. Because they were set to make a killing in California. And that the league could add the mets in expansion.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 01:25 PM) his legacy for me, good business man who missed many opportunities to bring more than that one elusive WS ring. Ted turner has only one ring. And he spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 6, 2015 -> 06:30 PM) Imagine being the Dodgers owner. Great team, and STILL nobody wants to watch them. At least the Sox know how to solve their TV ratings.....WIN. The Dodgers rsn is shown in only 25 percent of la homes

The Sox have right of first refusal to buy the cubs share of CSN if they leave. So if tommy boy wants to start his own channel like the dodgers and not be seen in the market due to high rights fees, so be it. The ratings are bad because the team is bad. lain and simple. Cubs ratings the last few years on csn were pretty s***ty as well.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 04:13 PM) there is something to be said about someone hehashing and old argument and get the same thing wrong. i am done. you are worthless. Ah, name calling. The sign of a truly intelligent person. I can't help it if you don't understand that the Bulls have NOTHING to do with sox finances.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 02:04 PM) cleaver.... and btw, 2 things. get the list of those on the board for both the sox and bulls and compare. and second, for you major size of your pea size intellect, how many times i am saying keep the bulls out of the equation. The Bulls and sox are TWO SEPERATE COMPANIES. they may share a chairman and various board members, but they are not merged companies. When I first got season tickets, I had asked my rep if he sells bulls tix in the summer, and he flat out told me that he wasn't a bulls employee.

QUOTE (LDF @ Oct 5, 2015 -> 02:27 PM) you disappoint me, i thought you weren't going to respond anymore. btw, ref the bold, yes you are right and after someone mention this point to be more precised in my statement, i then change in mid stream and i even said to keep the bulls out of it. several times. you are so determine to concentrate on what was posted before. hence the pea size intellect comment. i will not try to compete in english when i know will loose by a huge margin. many knows that. this is a second language for me.... but i try. so keep your insulting coming, it just show you do not have any major leg to stand on except for a few isolated sentence. the point is, the sox owners can afford to loose for 1 yr and make it up in the following yrs in many ways. and again i stated that coro acct and lawyers and for this fact, business mangers will more than likely protect their interest..... all the while having the owners blame the fans. The chairman has to answer to the board. how do you fail to understand this?